Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 213 of 1985, decided on 4th June, 1985

(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 16th February, 1985, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 552 of 1984).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)‑‑Sentence, reduction of‑‑Ahmad of Small Causes Court convicted and sentenced on charge of demanding/ accepting bribe‑‑Contention that sentence was very heavy and in view of fact that Eid was approaching, it be reduced to that already undergone, repelled‑‑Considering facts of case, specially department in which petitioner was working, and function he was performing, held, it was not a fit case for reduction of sentence because only by awarding heavier sentences evil of corruption can be eradicated.‑‑[Sentence].

Rashid Murtaza Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

M.A. Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.

Date of hearing: 4th June, 1985.

‑Muhammad Aslam, an Ahlmad in the Court of Small Causes Court at Lahore, was accused of demanding and accepting bribe and was convicted by the learned Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for which he was sentenced to 2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 (in default of payment of fine two months' R.I. on each count). He filed an appeal before the High Court which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment.

2. Being dissatisfied he seeks leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of the High Court.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned judgment.

The main contention urged by the learned counsel before us was that the sentence awarded to the petitioner was very heavy and in,, view of the fact that Eid is approaching, the sentence be reduced to' that already undergone by him.

4. Considering the facts of the case and specially the Department in which the petitioner was working and the function that he was performing we do not at all consider it a fit case for reduction of sentence because only by awarding heavier sentences the evil of corruption can be eradicated.

As a result we cannot accept the plea urged by the petitioner's counsel. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

M. I. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.